Petr Rockai <[email protected]> writes: >> • rename get to clone > clone is a (hidden) alias for get in 2.3 and onwards >> • rename changes to log >> • rename record to commit (DVCS are popular enough now) > this could be handled the same way
Patches welcome! >> • rename rollback to new "repeal" > repeal sounds ... odd, at least I agree. >> These changes sound sensible to me. (Plus `darcs uncommit`?) Is >> there an active effort to make darcs more consistent with other >> DVCSes? Regardless of which came first, git terminology is becoming >> ubiquitous. After showing an existing git user darcs, and noticing >> his surprise at `darcs annotate -p`, I think there may be a strong >> case for a language reform. > > We don't want to alienate existing users either. I'd go the route of > adding hidden git-ish aliases and keep our terminology whenever it > makes more sense (both record and changes are more sensible than > commit and log). +1. Then, at some point, we can swap around what the hidden alias is, so that eventually "darcs commit" will be documented and "darcs record" will be a backwards-compatible alias. Such a change was recently demonstrated (for darcs move vs. darcs mv, IIRC) and seems to have worked. _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
